ACORN

[Jester]

An informed person can be discriminating in their purchase decision, although the population will not, by and large, be informed. We suffer already from information overload, and in that so many lies are told that no one believes what they hear anymore as well. Even if you went on a massive campaign to inform people on the exploitation of children to pick cocoa or coffee beans, I would bet that over half the population would not believe it.

What I'm saying is that "I" am powerless. But, "WE" are not powerless. Then "WE" get to the question of which problem should "WE" focus upon now, exploitation of workers in the 3rd world, global warming, failing economy, exporting pollution to the 3rd world, corporate greed? It seems to me "WE" are doing a poor job at containing any one of them. Frankly my number one concern is the conversion of the economy off of a petroleum energy source. Without a continued source of cheap abundant energy, millions to billions of people will die.

Altruism should not be expected when it jeopardizes a persons natural rights. I also only believe in voluntary altruism, rather than institutionalized altruism.

So, if I have this straight...

An individual is powerless, and people are too ignorant to act individually with enough cumulative weight to change things, so you probably shouldn't even try, *but*, you're also opposed to any institutionalized altruism which might enable people to overcome their individual powerlessness?

(Whether, in a democracy, institutionalized altruism is involuntary depends on your concept of citizenship, of course. But that's another topic.)

-Jester